Peckris

I can't decide if the portrait is meant to be Henry VIII or Prince Charles!! I was wondering, could it be a 'Mary Rose' souvenir type of thing? It looks modern to me.

I believe the seller may be wrong. "Very bright" usually means polished (is it highly reflective?) A coin that is briefly dipped, simply loses its toning which may be anything from desirable blue or coloured to undesirable tarnish. A coin that is OVER-dipped loses its sparkle completely and acquires a kind of flat dull clean uniformity that to my eyes is not handsome at all. Of these, you can rate in order of UNdesirability (and lowered values) : 1. polished 2. heavily dipped 3. lightly dipped

If you've an interest in 1887 JH, then go into the "Varieties" sub-forum of this one, and have a look at my topic on a (so far unique, unrecorded) 1887 wreath reverse sixpence variety. Let me know what you think? http://www.predecimal.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4473

Nor me. Just one thought ... it's not a 9 with the downstroke kinked by an edge knock, and the upper "stroke" simply a scratch? As I say, just a thought.

Thin over fat surely! The underlying 8 shows through so much it must be that way round? I think the fat and thin terms are looked at in different ways. the 'Thin' you refer to is the thickness of the lines but I think the other way to look at it is the overall width of the 8? The narrow (thin) 8 has thick lines and the wide (fat) 8 has thin lines. Just different ways of describing it I think?? Reminds me of that US comedy "Soap" - the one that had an introduction listing all the recent events and ending "Confused? You WILL be..."

Don't worry - coins up to 10 or more years old and virtually BU turn up quite often.

Thin over fat surely! The underlying 8 shows through so much it must be that way round?

Sorry, but WTF is the point in the above post ? It's not even spam, it's just meaningless garbage. The point was to allow me to vent - the guy was clearly performing a public service

Choice! A dab hand with the arrows, shame that they mean bugger all!!!!! I've contacted the seller, let's hope he is an honest joe.

Yeah I see the fork, a few of my 1860s have the fork at the very tip, but none as pronounced as yours, thats a great example. Yes - I actually tried to interest Colin Cooke in it when he was working on the Farthings section of the replacement for Peck, but he didn't seem that bothered really. I wish I'd sent him the picture now, but it's too late *sigh*.

Old Head? London Mint? If so, then CCGB gives £70 EF and £120 UNC. Jubilee Head (London) £110 EF and £160 UNC Other mints, worth a LOT more.

Dirt is a possibility, but you can see it also peeking over the top of the 8. From the distribution of it, I think could well be an underlying 8.

Definitely an inverted 8. It also has the beginnings of the 'forked tail' 6, do you see? Here's mine, much more pronounced :

If it's "Very worn" it wouldn't be possible to say which numeral overlies which. If it IS an 1865/3 'clear date' it would be worth a few pounds, but no more.

Now THAT would make an interesting variation on the Xmas tree chocolate coins ...

The sharpness of the edge is a good indicator of a proof, as it's something that prooflike early strikes do NOT have. But yes, seeing it 'in hand' is the only sure way to tell.

One way of getting answers to questions is NOT posting them into specialised forums like this one and hoping that some poor cluck is going to take pity on your dumb ass and give you a free leg-up. As you've mentioned Google I assume you know what that does? Right. Then get thee hence and type something into the Search field and leave us poor clucks alone. Lest we kick your dumb ass.

Badger, when you click Reply, the post you're replying to is quoted for you in the reply box. So you just type after the end quote that's already there.

Well he must have been a brave man trying to take an imprint of that Not taken from one of the replicas available as it look too much like a real penny. A pity he didn't blow the felt hairs of the back before making the impression Gary Those replicas are total pants. Even the Lavrillier pattern looks more like the real thing than those abominations. I'd have paid £240 for that top one. The bottom one is a bad job, especially for the money. Speaking of the Lavrillier pattern ...

Didn't bother playing it to be honest. If I've heard that damn song once I've heard it 1967 penny mintage times But... after your comment, I went and watched it .... with the sound turned right down. NICE

You said 1963 before, not 1961. The 1961 Scottish is worth more as it's scarcer. Up to £5 for a truly Unc example. 1939 in GVF, perhaps £2 - £3 max.

There are only a few very dedicated collectors of particular die numbers. The total absence of one (where there should be one) certainly would be noteworthy and rare, but very few people are concerned about the particular die number. But, you need to be careful as gold always throws up fakes. Perhaps an unrecorded die number should alert you, or at least make you cautious.

Be careful. Be VERY careful. Some insurance companies define a collection as an 'individual item' and NOT a particular coin. Check it with them!!!!!!

Just out of interest Hello17, why are you listening to old fart boring straight rock music? I may be an old fart myself these days but I'd far rather listen to Dizzee Rascal or other assorted hip hop artists than to a genre that hasn't had anything worthwhile to say since The Smiths.

??????? Excuse me?